BasicPatrick

BST Users
  • Content count

    177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About BasicPatrick

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • About Me:
    Many years in Recovery
  • Interests (Hobbies, favorite activities, etc.):
    Stupid Question...Ok Cigars too!!!!!
  • What I do for a living:
    Outdoor Writer, Professional Recreational Fishing Advocate, and I have a struggling Painting Busines
  1. From MSBA and the MBBA Political Action Committee we thank you all for submitting comments. All indications are we generated a large amount compared to normal on this issue. MBBA and MSBA web sites will have the organizational long form comments by both orgs posted in the coming days. Good job by all.
  2. MBBA ACTION ALERT 1/4/16 The Cape Cod National Seashore is currently accepting public comment on a proposed Comprehensive Shorebird Management Plan. This comment period opened on November 9th, 2015 and will end on January 11, 2016 at 11:59PM. The Massachusetts Beach Buggy Association has spent a great deal of time & resources working with a consulting firm in order to analyze this very complicated 274-page document. MBBA will continue to review the Seashore’s proposal and will be submitting detailed comments by January 11th. We have released this ACTION ALERT urging members, friends, affiliated organizations and the public at large to take a few minutes and submit individual comments as soon as possible. There are TWO ways to submit comments: 1) To submit comment via email: Open the web site: www.parkplanning.nps.gov On this page you will find a list of "Projects with Documents Open for Comment. Click on the "Cape Cod National Seashore" "Comprehensive Shorebird Management Plan". Click on the words "Open for Comment" Click on the words "Comprehensive Shorebird Management Planned Environmental Assessment" Click on the Words "Comment Now" Fill out the digital form and either type in or cut and paste your comments. 2) To submit comments via US Mail: Mr. George Price, Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet MA 02667. What should you say in your comments? In our view, the proposed plan is so vaguely written that even though it appears to promote access via flexible management, we feel it simply gives the Park Service a "blank check” to impose more restrictions on the public's access & ability to recreate within the Cape Cod National Seashore. MBBA urges like-minded commenters to consider incorporating the following guidance into their personal comments. We prefer commenters write in their own words, however feel free to cut and paste if you prefer. Suggested guidance for comments: 1) The alternatives proposed will cause significant impact to wildlife populations, park resources and traditional visitor experience. This level of impact is not adequately captured in the "EA" (Environment Assessment). While we acknowledge NPS held a one-night open house on the plan, there has been no detailed public presentation to both year round and summer residents. To conduct a public comment period over the holidays for a plan that proposes NPS shoot, trap and poison animals with no public hearing can be seen as nothing else but an attempt to avoid public scrutiny of a very controversial subject matter. NPS should find that the potential impact of these alternatives rises to a level that requires a comprehensive "EIS" (Environmental Impact Statement) rule making process, which includes formal public hearings, a more detailed analysis of impacts and allows for more transparent public input. 2) Alternative A is presented as the legally required Status Quo option. In most sections, the language used differs in content and meaning from the language in the existing CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). In the section that details size of the SCV (Self Contained Vehicle) areas, Alternative A makes changes to the methodology used to determine the size of these areas. We suggest Alternative A be re-written and status quo language be taken directly from the existing CFR. If NPS is actually proposing changes to the SCV area language, it should do so in a separate alternative with clear explanation so that the public can fully understand and make comment. 3) The plan proposes multiple actions which allow CCNS personnel a great deal of flexibility when it comes to personal judgment regarding placement of symbolic fencing, the size of buffer zones and decisions on whether to open, modify or completely close access to various areas. The alternatives do not provide enough detail for the public to evaluate this type of flexibility and how the specific alternatives will impact current access. We feel that each of these sections should contain detailed procedures that include measurable metrics based on best available science. These procedures should be explained using language that is easy to understand by both NPS and stakeholders. 4) Alternative B allows NPS to relax protection of up to 5 nests near income generating parking lots, lifeguarded beaches and "Pole Road". This reduction in shorebird protection would be allowed in exchange for increased protection and restricted access to other areas of the park in which recreational activities are currently allowed after July 1. For example, Alternative B would allow for traditional spring restrictions in Hatches Harbor be extended to as late as October 15 if certain species are simply present. We do not feel the benefit of this flexible management is worth the risk of losing the ability to fish, swim and kayak in Hatches Harbor, Nauset Marsh and from increased closed areas from expanded protection of "resting" shorebirds. 5) Generally, MBBA is opposed to using lethal predator control as a method to increase shorebird populations within CCNS. We question how birds that have eaten poison but fly away will be counted in terms of the proposed 50 animals this plan allows NPS to kill each year. Much more detail and discussion should be provided to the public with regard to the predator control programs prior to final decision making. We notice that a recent reduction in the use of exclosures appears to coincide with the similarly recent dramatic decline in fledge rate. We would like to see use of exclosures returned to the frequency of use when fledge rates were as high as 1.44. Finally, the Purpose and Need section lays blame for increased numbers of predators on the human caused factors of "Bird Feeders, Garbage left on beaches & Road kill". This plan proposes no actions to reduce bird feeders or road kill within or near the park nor does it propose methods to prevent human garbage from being deposited on the beach twice per day during the rise and fall of the tide. Once you have submitted comments, please call at least one friend and get them to make comment as well. Democracy works when people voice their opinion. Your opinions matter! Sincerely: MBBA Political Action Committee
  3. MBBA ACTION ALERT 1/4/16 The Cape Cod National Seashore is currently accepting public comment on a proposed Comprehensive Shorebird Management Plan. This comment period opened on November 9th, 2015 and will end on January 11, 2016 at 11:59PM. The Massachusetts Beach Buggy Association has spent a great deal of time & resources working with a consulting firm in order to analyze this very complicated 274-page document. MBBA will continue to review the Seashore’s proposal and will be submitting detailed comments by January 11th. We have released this ACTION ALERT urging members, friends, affiliated organizations and the public at large to take a few minutes and submit individual comments as soon as possible. There are TWO ways to submit comments: 1) To submit comment via email: Open the web site: www.parkplanning.nps.gov On this page you will find a list of "Projects with Documents Open for Comment. Click on the "Cape Cod National Seashore" "Comprehensive Shorebird Management Plan". Click on the words "Open for Comment" Click on the words "Comprehensive Shorebird Management Planned Environmental Assessment" Click on the Words "Comment Now" Fill out the digital form and either type in or cut and paste your comments. 2) To submit comments via US Mail: Mr. George Price, Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet MA 02667. What should you say in your comments? In our view, the proposed plan is so vaguely written that even though it appears to promote access via flexible management, we feel it simply gives the Park Service a "blank check” to impose more restrictions on the public's access & ability to recreate within the Cape Cod National Seashore. MBBA urges like-minded commenters to consider incorporating the following guidance into their personal comments. We prefer commenters write in their own words, however feel free to cut and paste if you prefer. Suggested guidance for comments: 1) The alternatives proposed will cause significant impact to wildlife populations, park resources and traditional visitor experience. This level of impact is not adequately captured in the "EA" (Environment Assessment). While we acknowledge NPS held a one-night open house on the plan, there has been no detailed public presentation to both year round and summer residents. To conduct a public comment period over the holidays for a plan that proposes NPS shoot, trap and poison animals with no public hearing can be seen as nothing else but an attempt to avoid public scrutiny of a very controversial subject matter. NPS should find that the potential impact of these alternatives rises to a level that requires a comprehensive "EIS" (Environmental Impact Statement) rule making process, which includes formal public hearings, a more detailed analysis of impacts and allows for more transparent public input. 2) Alternative A is presented as the legally required Status Quo option. In most sections, the language used differs in content and meaning from the language in the existing CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). In the section that details size of the SCV (Self Contained Vehicle) areas, Alternative A makes changes to the methodology used to determine the size of these areas. We suggest Alternative A be re-written and status quo language be taken directly from the existing CFR. If NPS is actually proposing changes to the SCV area language, it should do so in a separate alternative with clear explanation so that the public can fully understand and make comment. 3) The plan proposes multiple actions which allow CCNS personnel a great deal of flexibility when it comes to personal judgment regarding placement of symbolic fencing, the size of buffer zones and decisions on whether to open, modify or completely close access to various areas. The alternatives do not provide enough detail for the public to evaluate this type of flexibility and how the specific alternatives will impact current access. We feel that each of these sections should contain detailed procedures that include measurable metrics based on best available science. These procedures should be explained using language that is easy to understand by both NPS and stakeholders. 4) Alternative B allows NPS to relax protection of up to 5 nests near income generating parking lots, lifeguarded beaches and "Pole Road". This reduction in shorebird protection would be allowed in exchange for increased protection and restricted access to other areas of the park in which recreational activities are currently allowed after July 1. For example, Alternative B would allow for traditional spring restrictions in Hatches Harbor be extended to as late as October 15 if certain species are simply present. We do not feel the benefit of this flexible management is worth the risk of losing the ability to fish, swim and kayak in Hatches Harbor, Nauset Marsh and from increased closed areas from expanded protection of "resting" shorebirds. 5) Generally, MBBA is opposed to using lethal predator control as a method to increase shorebird populations within CCNS. We question how birds that have eaten poison but fly away will be counted in terms of the proposed 50 animals this plan allows NPS to kill each year. Much more detail and discussion should be provided to the public with regard to the predator control programs prior to final decision making. We notice that a recent reduction in the use of exclosures appears to coincide with the similarly recent dramatic decline in fledge rate. We would like to see use of exclosures returned to the frequency of use when fledge rates were as high as 1.44. Finally, the Purpose and Need section lays blame for increased numbers of predators on the human caused factors of "Bird Feeders, Garbage left on beaches & Road kill". This plan proposes no actions to reduce bird feeders or road kill within or near the park nor does it propose methods to prevent human garbage from being deposited on the beach twice per day during the rise and fall of the tide. Once you have submitted comments, please call at least one friend and get them to make comment as well. Democracy works when people voice their opinion. Your opinions matter! Sincerely: MBBA Political Action Committee
  4. I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) The fund has contributed large amounts of money toward piers on The Bass River in Yarmouth, Oak Bluffs on MV, and Cashman Park in Newburyport. Notice the geographic spread of benefits. The fund has also helped a lot of medium sized projects such as the repairs to the pier at the canal and a car top access point on the North River. The committee is salivating to pull the trigger on a monster project in Boston...a Deer Island Pier. The small grant fund has also done a bunch of good stuff. Please keep conversations like this going. Yep, a lot of ideas won't move but some will. No, things will never be perfect but outside of "maybe" florida, MA has BY FAR the best benefits from any salt water license on the East Coast. ITs because the clubs got involved and are still involved. IF you are not a member.....
  5. I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) Before any project starts eating money form the fund, the land owner must sign appropriate agreements. In this case the town DID SIGN an agreement and roughly 27,000 was spent on engineering etc. My understanding is that one resident rallied other resident and a relatively small group of less that 20 homeowners killed the project. My view from what I have been told is that the town owes the state the 27,000 if it wants out of the agreement. The local residents should be pissed at the town admin if it was known ahead of time this project was an issue. Wither way the town signed the agreement and the only was spent. If they want out they must pay it back...at least that what the lawyers seem to be indicating, It will be interesting to see if the Attorney Generals office really goes after the money. I can guarantee the the five members of the committee are paying attention and either way it will effect the future.
  6. I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) Did you know that the repairs to the Canal pier walkway that was closed a little more than a year ago came from the license fund? Although the property is owned by the Army Corps the pie was built by MA State Office of Boating & Access thus it was possible to get some money to the repair and get DCR involved....the committee I serve and MA DMF public access guy Ross Kessler was one of the groups that made that repair happen. The old spit of property behind ?????gate where all that spring fishing to the peewee used to occur was on our committee's initial agenda but Im sure many remember the residents hated fishermen so it went nowhere Onset is already an area we have been searching for a potential project....nothing has developed traction...yet Lights are tough as someone has to pay for the electricity and long term maintenance...not to mention liability
  7. I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) No petition needed. Email ideas to ross.kessler@state.ma.us I will say my experience is that 75% of quick ideas are not possible due to common sense reasons so think a bit first.
  8. I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) There is nothing wrong with questioning what is going on with the money. This fund MUST always be under great scrutiny. FYI, there is a small project grant process. MA DMF has not yet been able to give out all the grant money budgeted in any year due to not enough applicants that qualified. The criteria is specific and addresses some of the side comments in this thread. We won't approve giving money to improve a right of way if it only has resident only parking. etc. Any and all small project ideas should be sent to Ross Kessler ross.kessler@state.ma.us Ross is a good guy who used to work at a tackle/fly shop so he gets it. He is MA DMF staff and his position was created when we passed the license. He is the guy who hunts down solutions to public access conflicts when they arise. He also oversees the small grant program. Email him and get those ideas flowing into the system.
  9. Hi Bernie....I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) By law, for hire charter and head boats are not commercial in MA state waters.The individuals fishing from vessels with for hire charter or head boat licenses are recreational anglers.
  10. I am one of the five members of the MA Recreational Fisheries Development Panel that is discussed in this thread. I can be reached for appropriate one on one discussion via BasicPatrick@aol.com. I have a delete key so be nice (:>) There is a great deal of experience with regard to gear conflict on reefs up and down the coast. My understanding & feeling when I voted to approve the project was that there is no way to determine if someone is rod and reel commercial fishing so that is a non issue in my mind. What I and others were concerned about was pots and gill nets interfering with rod and reel fishing and the regulation people are writing it up.
  11. I don't care what people say as long as it supports 1 @ 28" I don't feel like loosing May or Sept in four years and that will happen if we don't have an actual reduction.
  12. I have learned through sources that the Governor of RI is leaning on RI DEM to allow 2 Striped Bass for anglers on board a for hire trip. Its time for RI residents to contact your Governor and let her know you want 1 fish @ 28" for all. Don't waste your time if you are not a RI resident. It's obvious the RI For Hire Fleet has been working on their Governor BUT it is still very possible to educated the Governor on the will of the people, especially considering how controversial this issue has become. Governors don't like fish controversy. I suggest the following messages: 1 regulation for all citizens, Fair is fair. Why is she supporting less fish for RI residents? Why risk further restrictions when the industry made plenty of money under the 1 @ 28" regulation? Whys is she ignoring the clear will of the majority of RI residents? CALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FISHING BUDDIES WITHIN RI-POST EVERYWHERE--SPAM THE WORLD Link to the page to submit a form email: http://www.governor.ri.gov/contact/ Phone number to the office is: 401-222-2080
  13. Here is a more direct link to post a comment...lets give Nauset some love http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R5-ES-2014-0051-0001
  14. MSBA ACTION ALERT: MSBA requests that all members & friends use their computers and submit positive comments on the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and Over-Sand Vehicle Self Escort Program for Nauset Beach in Orleans MA. Both the HCP and Escort Program have been accepted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are currently listed in the U.S. Federal Register for public comment. Today MSBA calls on each and every one of you to take a few minutes and submit a comment. You may do so by visiting: http://www.regulations.gov/… and clicking on the comment button. Please understand that this is not a chat room, message board or forum. These are formal comments that are used in determining whether or not the Town of Orleans will be issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). MSBA recommends your comments be short, to the point and meaningful. The following are positions MSBA suggests you consider using in your comments: 1) I agree with all statements contained in section II (Purpose and Need). 2) Regarding Section III, piping plover are listed under ESA as “threatened” and not “endangered.” The proposed plan appears to comply with the law and strikes a fair balance between protection of all shorebirds and public access. 3) Regarding Section IX, the escort program provides adequate monitoring and is simple enough for the public to understand and follow. High rates of compliance are likely. After due process of the law, violators should loose their permits permanently. 4) Section X & XI. Climate change is effecting the migratory distribution of all species in the region. I am concerned that nest loss due to storms or habitat loss caused by climate change will be blamed on the public beach user. Climate change should be considered as impacts of this program are evaluated in the future. 5) Section XI. Arbitrary killing of all animals is wrong. Mitigation by lethal predator removal should be a last resort. This program should make all efforts to use non-lethal predator removal techniques, including testing new ideas. 6) Regarding section XV, the program appears to be affordable considering income from OSV permit sales. Thank You MSBA Government Affairs
  15. IMPORTANT MSBA GOV'T AFFAIRS UDATE ON COD & HADDOCK: Monday the National Marine Fishery Service announced the recreational groundfish regulations for the new fishing year which begins next week on May 1 2014. Poor stock asessments made the recreational share of the quota low and adding to the situation is that the MRIP data shows the recreational catch was way over our 30% share of both Gulf of Maine Cod & Gulf of Maine Haddock. Although recreational leaders are questioning the data, the regulations have now been announced. I have tried to put this as simple as possible BEGINNING MAY 1 2014 GULF OF MAINE COD 21 inch minimum size 9 Cod per person bag limit Season Opens May 1 2014 through August 30 2014 Season Closed Sept 1 2014 through April 14 2-15 GULf OF MAINE HADDOCK 21 inch minimum size 3 Haddock per person bag limit Season Opens May 1 2014 through August 30 21024 Seaon Closed September 1 2014 through November 30 2014 Season Opens December 1 2014 through February 28 2015